moon_guardfandomcom-20200213-history
Talk:Three Virtues
The Three Virtues are a canon concept, so doesn't that mean that anyone is allowed to add to this page, like with all other canon pages? Vannesira Smith (talk) 01:15, February 21, 2016 (UTC) Exactly what I thought! Admiral Ranets Daggerfang (talk) 05:22, February 21, 2016 (UTC) ^ Varadu (talk) 05:35, February 21, 2016 (UTC) Anyone can add to the page. I believe the involved parties all talked with one another and came up with a compromise to maintain the quality and relevance of the page. Not to say, of course, that any contributions were not on their own not quality or irrelevant, just that they may have been best on another page rather than on this particular page. Moorwhelp (talk) 05:57, February 21, 2016 (UTC) Then I'd say it's okay to revert? The edit did nothing negative to the page. Was a harmless addition, really. Parties did speak and poster was made aware that he is more than welcomed to add his info on a new page. Coalie T (talk) 06:12, February 21, 2016 (UTC) Unless I'm reading this wrong and you mean that Skaxis wanted to add it on a new page, that doesn't make any sense, because according to the admins: Any content that is canon lore may be edited by anyone on the wiki. So why would he have to make a new page? Vannesira Smith (talk) 06:18, February 21, 2016 (UTC) Yes, why would he be welcome to 'add his info on a new page' if it relates directly to this one? If I desire to write a section on the Reformist interpretation of the T.V., will I also be welcome to do so but only on a new page? Arathorstories (talk) 08:39, February 21, 2016 (UTC) It was a sermon placed on an informational page. While it was related to the subject matter of the page, it is not the same. I, personally, think that his hard work and beautiful sermon deserves its own page so that it is the main subject of said page, just as several others have done on the wiki. He was spoken to over voice chat and he agreed as to why it did not belong on this page in that conversation. Coalie T (talk) 08:05, February 21, 2016 (UTC) Sign your posts at the bottom, not the top. Arathorstories (talk) 08:38, February 21, 2016 (UTC) Actually, I was never spoke to over "voice chat" so please stop trying to speak for me, nor was I told it would be alright for me to re-add my addition. I will speak for myself. Latarian, the wikia account who initally removed it, and I spoke in game about the removal. I was suprised, but I did not question his decesion as I assumed he was more of an expert of this piticular topic than I was and policies that regarded it. I didn't believe it was something to fight over, so I accepted it for what it was. Though I do appreciate everybody defending/complementing it, I don't believe my little three paragraph sermon deems it's own page. I'll just keep it macro'd in game. Skaxis (talk) 11:48, February 21, 2016 (UTC) - EDITED to fix my typos. I'll talk to you in game about it Skaxis. :) Because, yes, it was brought up to you in that conversation before it was removed else it wouldn't have been edited without talking to you about it first. Not sure how that conversation we had was misunderstood, but evidently there is a misunderstanding that needs cleared up! Coalie T (talk) 17:16, February 21, 2016 (UTC) I'm sure it was just a matter of trying to keep a seminary reference page tight... no ill will here. I see no reason why there could not be a teaching section that links to other pages. Moorwhelp (talk) 17:22, February 21, 2016 (UTC) Of course Mr. Moorwhelp. I am not defending or arguing agaisnt my submission or its removal. If the "clergy" as a whole, namely those in charge, do not want it on thispage, that is fine. As I said, I do not believe a three paragraph little lecture is worthy of it's own page. I'll just keep it macro'd in game. And Coalie T, no I wasn't. I was not consulted about this at all, in game, skype, postal service, or even carrier pigeon. The only reason I even knew it was removed is because I recieved an automatic email from the wikia saying my submission was snubbed (after 30 days of sitting up there untouched). I logged in game, confronted Latarian, who was the account that removed it, and he then explained why he did what he did, and I accepted it for what it was. This conversation really, in all forms and aspects, is resolved. Thank you gentlemen and ladies for conversing. Skaxis (talk) 00:31, February 22, 2016 (UTC) Though really Skaxis submission/addition should never have been removed in the first place, this is at the end of the day a canon topic, and Clergy does not hold lock and key over Holy RP on the server, it didn't detract from the premise of the article in anyway and considering it was Binor that created the page originally Clergy can't even claim to hold any sort of authority over it, if Skaxis desires his submission to be on this page he has every right to have it here. Epilvik (talk) 02:15, February 22, 2016 (UTC) Hahaha, I've been good for this long, but let's be real a second... I have absolutely no clue where the hell everyone is getting "clergy, clergy, clergy" from . You'd think we were involved in some way. We've not deliberated one way or another. It is out of our depth as a guild to do so. All three users involved with this incident - those being Skaxis, Latarian, and Coalie T - are members of the same guild. Sorry America, but it isn't clergy. Please at least know who is involved before you weigh in just to cast the blame. No one is making, has made, or will ever make the argument that the Clergy has the key to holy role-play or "authority" over this page. As for me, when I'm on the wikia, I'm doing my part as an admin, not as a representative of the Clergy. I cannot speak for Latarian or his guild mates as I have not even spoken ''with ''Latarian about this issue, but I can speak for the admin staff that Skaxis, whether he talked to Coalie T or Latarian in voice or not, has four options available to him: #Skaxis can revert the page back to include his sermon without consulting those concerned. He is in the right to do so, if he desires. #Skaxis can consult with those concerned (conveniently, all in his non-Clergy guild) and find a compromise that works for everyone. #Skaxis can make a new page and link it to the original page under the nifty teachings section. #Skaxis can request administrator mediation if he feels uncomfortable proceeding any other way. He likewise has my assurance that the wikia team, including myself, wants nothing more than to see more edits including this and future sermons. I like his material and can't wait to read more. I'm just real sorry that there was no clergy-bashing to be had here. We can try again another time. Moorwhelp (talk) 09:07, February 22, 2016 (UTC) "clergy, clergy, clergy," my apologies Mr. Moorwhelp. What I mean when I say clergy isnt an accusation towards you or your project. Instead I mean the holy church and the "Light RP" movement as a whole. Bad use of incorrect synonyms on my part. Thank you for everybodies support. I now believe, as mentioned before, the subject be scored as settled, and we can all go on drinking tea, getting coins in Goldshire, or slaying dragons. You know, what makes you happy. Skaxis (talk) 09:58, February 22, 2016 (UTC)